NORMA A.

ABDULLA versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. NO. 150129 April 6, 2005

Facts: Convicted by the Sandiganbayan in its Crim. Case No. 23261 of the crime of illegal use of public
funds defined and penalized under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code, or more commonly known as
technical malversation, appellant Norma A. Abdulla is now before this Court on petition for review
under Rule 45. Along with Nenita Aguil and Mahmud Darkis, appellant was charged under an
Information which pertinently reads: That on or about November, 1989 or sometime prior or
subsequent thereto, in Jolo, Sulu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused: NORMA A. ABDULLA and NENITA P. AGUIL, both public officers, being then the
President and cashier, respectively, of the Sulu State College, and as such by reason of their positions
and duties are accountable for public funds under their administration, while in the performance of
their functions, conspiring and confederating with MAHMUD I. DARKIS, also a public officer, being then
the Administrative Officer V of the said school, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
without lawful authority, apply for the payment of wages of casuals, the amount of FORTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P40,000.00), Philippine Currency, which amount was appropriated for the payment of the salary
differentials of secondary school teachers of the said school, to the damage and prejudice of public
service .Appellants co-accused, Nenita Aguil and Mahmud Darkis, were both acquitted. Only appellant
was found guilty and sentenced by the Sandiganbayan in its decision. Upon motion for reconsideration,
the Sandiganbayan amended appellants sentence by deleting the temporary special disqualification
imposed upon her. Still dissatisfied, appellant, now before this Court, persistently pleas innocence of the
crime charged.
Issue:
1) Whether or not there was unlawful intent on the appellants part.

2) Whether or not the essential elements of the crime of technical malversation is present.

Held: The Court must have to part ways with the Sandiganbayan in its reliance on Section 5 (b) of Rule
131 as basis for its imputation of criminal intent upon appellant. The presumption of criminal intent will
not automatically apply to all charges of technical malversation because disbursement of public funds
for public use is per se not an unlawful act. Here, appellant cannot be said to have committed an
unlawful act when she paid the obligation of the Sulu State College to its employees in the form of
terminal leave benefits such employees were entitled to under existing civil service laws. There is no
dispute that the money was spent for a public purpose payment of the wages of laborers working on
various projects in the municipality. It is pertinent to note the high priority which laborers wages enjoy
as claims against the employers funds and resources. Settled is the rule that conviction should rest on
the strength of evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense. Absent this
required quantum of evidence would mean exoneration for accused-appellant. The Sandiganbayans
improper reliance on Sec. 5(b) of Rule 131 does not save the day for the prosecutions deficiency in
proving the existence of criminal intent nor could it ever tilt the scale from the constitutional
presumption of innocence to that of guilt. In the absence of criminal intent, this Court has no basis to
affirm appellants conviction. 2. The Court notes that there is no particular appropriation for salary
differentials of secondary school teachers of the Sulu State College in RA 6688. The third element of the
crime of technical malversation which requires that the public fund used should have been appropriated
by law, is therefore absent. The authorization given by the Department of Budget and Management for
the use of the forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00) allotment for payment of salary differentials of 34
secondary school teachers is not an ordinance or law contemplated in Article 220 of the Revised Penal
Code. Appellant herein, who used the remainder of the forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00) released by
the DBM for salary differentials, for the payment of the terminal leave benefits of other school teachers
of the Sulu State College, cannot be held guilty of technical malversation in the absence, as here, of any
provision in RA 6688 specifically appropriating said amount for payment of salary differentials only. In
fine, the third and fourth elements of the crime defined in Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code are
lacking in this case. Acquittal is thus in order.